tv [untitled] February 22, 2011 1:00pm-1:30pm PST
it's historic on the statewide and national basis, but you could rush the project or put thought and time to create something of lasting public benefit. >> we really want this, for everyone to feel like it's a win situation. whether you are a neighbor that lives nearby or a commuter or user of the park. that everyone will experience a much better situation than they currently have. >> the human interest to me is how people could work out so many challenging differences to come to a design that we believe will give us a jewel. landmark of a place. >> i am sure it will have refining effect like embark did. and there were people about that and no one would think of
that today. and when you look at growth and transformation of the embark, the same with doyle. it will be a cherished part of the city and a worthy addition to what is there. >> it will be a safe and beautiful entrance to a spectacular beautiful city. it will be the entry to golden gate that san francisco deserves. could you please read the first item >> item 1, resolution authorizing the department of public health to accept and expend a grant-the amount of $500,000 in federal surface transportation program and/or ingestion mitigation and air quality improvement funds through the metropolitan transportation commission's safe routes to school grant program,
waving indirect costs, stating assurance to complete the project, and to delegate authorization to execute these agreements and any amendments thereto to the director of public health. supervisor mirkarimi: very good. who would like to present? >> good morning, supervisors. i'm from the department of public health, and i'm here to request your approval to except and expend the safe routes to school grant. this is about promoting safe and after walking and biking to and from school for students and their families. we currently have a grant for safe route to school that will end august 31, so this grant will allow us to continue our work and also basically extend what we are currently doing. we will have more of a focus on reducing congestion and vehicle emissions at school sites as well as making walking and bicycling safer for students. the grant starts september 1, 2011, for two years. the grant was awarded by the san
francisco county transportation authority to the department of public health last summer, and we are now requesting your approval. ben from the county transportation authority is here if you have questions on the funding stream. supervisor mirkarimi: questions or comments? i think it is pretty self- explanatory. i have to confess, when i first saw the title of it, what it conjured up for me was roughly five years ago when in our district and other parts of the city, there was a considerable effort to shut down schools by the school district. the question at the time of safe routes for kids in distressed neighborhoods who wanted to avoid crossing gang lines -- how are they going to get to school? the term that emerged then was safe routes to school. how do we help them to assure safe passage to school without crossing into an area that they
could be confronted byá confrontation. i kind of thought that was part of it, but i'm happy to see this as well. it is obviously inherited. i think it is self-explanatory. any other comments from you all? good. public comment on this item? public comment is closed. colleagues, take this? very good. with recommendation. next item please. >> item data we will come a resolution authorizing the police department to attractively accept and expend a $178,962 grant -- item two, resolution authorizing the police department to retroactively accept and expend a 170 a thousand $962 grant. supervisor mirkarimi: anyone
from the police department? step on that please. >> good morning. captain perry from the police department. this grant is put forth as a way to upgrade our number one vessel in our fleet for the marine unit with cleaner-burning engines and a cleaner system put out by the bay area quality management. supervisor mirkarimi: ok. quickly, has this ever been needed before, or is this the first time? >> this is the first time for this vessel. it was a prior coastguard vessel that was procured through a different program. has two large decoy diesel burning engines reaching their life span. the vessel itself has a longer life span, and this will be a more efficient, fuel-efficient, and better air quality for the link of the service of the
vehicle -- the length of the service of the vehicle. supervisor mirkarimi: colleagues, comments or questions? seeing none, any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. take this without objection? so moved. >> item 3, resolution authorizing the police department to retroactively accept and expend a $65,000 grant from the california state department of boating and waterways for a boating safety enforcement grant to purchase equipment for the marine unit. >> yes, supervisors, this is a great opportunity. we did our matching funds portion for the first grant we talked about to secure another grant from the bay area -- i'm sorry -- as indicated, the second grant will supply us with the upgrade needed for the installation and new exhaust system to augment the engines we are purchasing.
there will be no costs on the general fund or police department budget to accomplish this mission. supervisor mirkarimi: and upgrades from there in caretaking built in? for either this item with the previous item. >> that is correct. the burden for maintenance and upkeep comes out of our budget. this is our cfo advising me where it is coming from. supervisor mirkarimi: great. colleagues, anything? all right, public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. take this without objection? so move. >> item four, resolution authorizing the department of public health to accept and expend retroactively a grant from the department of justice in the amount of $141,586 to fund the project entitled safe havens: supervised visitation
and safe exchange continuation project." >> i oversee the project. this is a second three-year grant, a continuation of the department of justice funding to provide safe exchange and visitation. sonia from the st. francis reilly project is here as well. i'm happy to answer any questions. supervisor mirkarimi: colleagues, something? yes, i think it is self- explanatory. thank you. if you want to speak to any of this, you are welcome to. >> briefly, i want to say that the grant actually expands services to the mission and the view hunters point this year. supervisor campos: if i may
simply add, it is good to see the commissioner from the health commission. thank you for being here. supervisor mirkarimi: yes, thank you. public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. take this without objection? so moved. madam clerk, let's go to item nine, it is possible please. >> item 9, ordinance amending article 3 of division one of the san francisco transportation code to allow certain municipal transportation agency employees to enforce specified parking lots and order removal of vehicles and amending article 7 of division one of the transportation code to make it a misdemeanor to operate a taxi, a dispatch service, or a color scheme, or to drive a motor vehicle for hire without a permit to solicit or accept payment for for all of passengers to a motor vehicle
for hire, to solicit or accept payment for motor vehicle for higher shifts, assignments or dispatch calls, to knowingly make false or misleading representations with application for renewal of, possible revocation of, or operation of a vehicle pursuant to a permit issued under article 1100 of the transportation code, refused to pay the legal heir to a rival -- to a driver of a motor vehicle for hire, and amending the police code by deleting several sections. supervisor mirkarimi: is there anybody here from supervisor chu's office for the city side? and staff? we will leave it open for the
time being. thank you. we will return to this when staff returns, and perhaps our staff can summon the staff. why don't you go ahead and call item 6? >> item 6, hearing to receive and consider the annual report of the san francisco reentry council. supervisor mirkarimi: very good. welcome. >> thank you so much, supervisors, for having a hearing today on the annual report, and also, the next item, to consider changes to the reentry council. i would like to provide a brief overview of the council background, changes to the ordinance and annual report, and there are other department heads and representatives here who would like to share their perspectives as well. in the council director out of the office of the public defender. staff at the district attorney
and mayor's office help to run the council. i have had the pleasure of doing this work for the last four years, starting first as a coordinated to save community reentry council, which was one of the ad hoc reentry councils in san francisco, led by supervisor mirkarimi and the public defender. at the time, there was another ad hoc -- council -- reentry council. one of the first projects the council did together was getting out and saying our guide. since september 2007, we have been able to distribute 13,000 copies of this guide. it has been updated seven times, and it has been printed through the generosity of nine different departments. they have been distributed through prison libraries, individuals seeking help. we get five to 10 letters every week and reply to them directly. funding for keeping the printing costs going is an ongoing challenge.
in 2008, through the leadership of all four cochairs of the council, a proposal was conceived to not only combine the council's but to expand their powers and become an official adviser to the mayor and supervisors on the issue of reentry. in some timber 2008, the board established reentry council in its current form. the proposed changes to the council would do a few things. the first is currently, the council is chaired by the mayor, the public defender, the sheriff, and the district attorney. it would add as co-chair our chief of adult probation. second, while the ordinance maintains dedication to formerly incarcerated people, three of whom are appointed by the mayor and four by the board of supervisors, it adds language about appointing authorities -- supervisor mirkarimi: sorry to interrupt you, but we are actually on the item to hear about the annual report.
i can call the item on the legislation for the amendment, but we are hearing on the report itself. >> ok, my apologies. i can skip ahead to that. supervisor mirkarimi: just in reverse order, but just so we keep in sync with items we have already mentioned, madam clerk, please go ahead and read item 7? >> item 7, or this amending the san francisco administrative code to amend the membership, powers, and duties and sunset date of the reentry council. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. so however you would like to bundle it, feel free to. >> ok, sorry about that. let me finish providing the brief changes, as proposed. the other two changes would add two members of -- to the council, the department children, youth, and families, and a member of the board of supervisors and would extend the sunset date from 2011 to 2014, said these changes came about as kind of a next proposed
abolition to the work of the reentry council since our first meeting and current formation in july 2009. since then, we have been working hard on developing the annual report, which is before you for your consideration. a couple of other achievements in addition to the annual report that we have achieved this year is we have a tracking system for tracking reentry funding opportunities. we pull together departments and organizations to make sure we do not miss any, and we also regularly report on funded projects at each meeting. secondly, the federal chance act authorized the creation of a lot of reentry initiative, and san francisco has done better than any other jurisdiction in the country, getting five of these competitive national awards. last, the reentry council has been asked by the rosenberg foundation to share our experiences by developing a
statewide network of councils. the annual report that is before you is for your consideration and, hopefully, your endorsement of the recommendation that was approved by the reentry council on december 7. the first annual report processor engaged over 95 individuals across five subcommittees. we had over 40 meetings over the course of the year. diverse interests and experiences, and a wealth of expertise. we have great a threat the years, and people expressed excellent feedback about their experiences serving on the subcommittee. we went through a structured strategic planning process, including literature review, survey of programs, seven brokers -- focus groups, and in- depth discussions and review. first section of the report contains an overview of some of the needs and key data points, beginning on page four.
the need data for san francisco reentry population will be more readily available and comprehensive. right now, it is quite piecemeal, but as we develop our criminal justice case management systems and integrated assessment tools, we will be able to look for better information. generally speaking, at a point in time, in summer 2010, the county jail population, with 1600 county probation, 1600 actively supervise, of the county probation is, 45% were african-american, and over half were under the age of 35. while san francisco since few people to state prisons, we actually have a higher than statewide average recidivism rate. in fact, 10% higher. it is likely due to the fact that the higher and it needs of our 1600 parolees in san francisco is due to their old age and multiple times through
the system. the framework for reentry that we develop begins on pages 11 and wealth and covers five chapters, which we consider encompassing the issue of reentry. civil rights and civic engagement, community justice and alternatives, health and well-being, self-sufficiency, and the welfare and safety of families, victims, and communities. we develop a framework that can be used to look at program capacity, funding, and action steps in the coming years. in this first step, we did a lot of building and getting consensus on this, and we will be able to use the same for work in the coming years. the 50 recommendations contained in the report across five areas we will be working on. we established three new subcommittees and have an open call out for committee members. my hope is we will be able to work with the board of supervisors, specifically public safety committee, to have regular updates to the committee and be able to ask for your assistance on specific
recommendations in the coming year. supervisor mirkarimi: i thought it might be a little bit hopeful that when we institutionalize the reentry, sold through legislation we passed here a couple of years ago and embarked on the idea of having an annual report, if you could step back and paint the picture in san francisco of what reentry means. what is the population of ex- offenders, probationers, parolees -- what is the capacity of us to deal with this for but of people in san francisco, coming to san francisco? where do we stand, in contrast to the rest of the state? i see the public defender was injured, but, you know, until we created the reentry council, really in a very compartmentalized way, many key departments like public
defender, d.a., sheriff, etc., have scoped out their own programs, but there really have not been the kind of cross pollination between those departments and non-profit networks, so they were all tackling what seemed to be a very insurmountable issue -- still may be -- but doing it more -- going at it alone more or less. so if you could just paint that picture a little bit more. i think that that helps explain why there had been an evolution towards the consul -- council and the very objectives they are trying to achieve. >> yes, absolutely. san francisco, as a whole, has a smaller population that goes to state prison, and 1500 or 1600 parolees -- our recidivism rate remains high, 10% higher than the state average. our recidivism rate proposed is 78% compared to a statewide
average of 68%. >> but it is mind blowing considering how forward thinking and really with it that san francisco is, that you would think it would almost be the converse of that statistic. i guarantee you, throughout the city and county of san francisco, considering how much we front load on, say, our public safety budgets -- right? police budget and everything else. nobody computes the statistic that is one out of three or one out of four offenders in san francisco are literally back on the streets repeating their crime within three years. if that is my understanding accurately. >> correct. it is a return to prison rate. i agree with you -- there's much more work to be done. the first step has been literally bringing everybody to one table. secondly, the stage we are at a sharing information and working together on future initiatives. there is a lot more work to be done on the systems for the
nation. not just among city county departments, but between the state and counties as well. in terms of some principles of how we are moving forward, we're really looking at the continuity of care and having individual ized services. while i agree that we have some very good services, a lot of times we have not found out what the individual's needs are and found inappropriate way to address them in the community. >> but there are trophy programs, for lack of a better phrase -- effective programs. nonprofits that are interconnected with the city government. well-known programs that are
well-recognized by both state and federal agencies as being model-type programs. then is it about their inability or all of our inability to hit the right numbers, reaching out to the population? because we just are not putting enough resources into it? to have such a high recidivism rate in sentences go and the fact that you never see that in the press, you never hear anybody talking about that, in kind of a mainstream way, and yet, it does not seem to connect the dots that we have a police budget of nearly $500 million, which continually escalates every year. the last $444 million, a year and rising. those kinds of contracts are never painted at all. you would think that as the council begins to really highlight that so it becomes
part of the mainstream objective. the one of our objectives moving forward, and we just applied for a grant to get some support at looking at a justice reinvestment strategy, and what this reinvestment is about is how we can spend our dollars less on jails, prisons, incarceration, and more on alternatives. one note about the 70% recidivism rate is it is not just coordination between the city and county entities, but it is between the state. individuals in state prisons are getting virtually no treatment, and the fact that our relatively small prole population has a high recidivism rate might likely be attributed to the fact that they have been through the system more times. they are older and generally have more acute needs than the average prole in another jurisdiction. not to make excuses, but i do think that it is just more information that supports the
fact that we need to have a different, more coordinated, standardized, and effective response in san francisco. supervisor mirkarimi: based on trend, where are we going? if we continue to invest proportional to what our budgeting habits are, say, in the police department, in an adult and juvenile probation, the public defender, and we are lucky enough that the different departments parcel out some of their budgets. police does not do this really, but the others. the parcel of some of their budget for programming to deal with reentry and recidivism. where do we see the trends deviating that actually speaks to how we might expect some improvements? >> i think that's the trend we see is going to be offended by the possibility of realignment. i would defer to the cheap here from the adult probation
department, if she would be willing to give a brief update on that, but the responsibilities are about to change under the law, in terms of where dollars should be invested, i think it is very much an open question until we first know, one, how many people san francisco will be responsible for, and to the we will, it we will be responsible for them. supervisor mirkarimi: you mean responsible in the future? >> correct. supervisor mirkarimi: because you think the state is deflecting population on to us? >> correct. the proposed state budget proposes back toward realigning much of the state prison and parole depopulation to the counties, so the chief and other public safety partners are engaged in conversation with the state right now to figure out, you know, formulas and things like that. but generally, the non serious, non violent individuals who have
no history of serious offenses or violence, would stay at the county level. they would not go to prison. within the next two to three years, state parolees or some portion thereof would become the responsibility of county. supervisor mirkarimi: that is in addition to what we are currently managing already? >> correct. but i would just say one point -- some of what san francisco struggles with, some of the absolutely brilliant and innovative local programs we do have, is making that connection to the state institutions and state parole is an ongoing challenge. supervisor mirkarimi: if we are operating with the general population of, gleaning from the report, 6500 probationers on a daily average and about 1800 parolees on a daily average living in san francisco,
residing in san francisco, what would we expect? we will ask the chief to come up, too. what can we expect in terms of the added responsibility of those numbers? >> i will have to defer to the chief on that because it is an evolving conversation. supervisor mirkarimi: colleagues. then we will ask some of the department heads to step up as well. supervisor campos: thank you. i do share the concerns of supervisor mirkarimi. i wanted to ask you just about the recommendations, if i may, to the chair. what is the timeline for addressing the recommendations you have? there is a table that begins on page 15 of your report. what is the timeline for addressing those? >> the timeline is not fixed for
each of them. we will be sitting down later in march with a newly formed subcommittee and developing implementation plans, at which time, i will have a timeline. it will be a good portion of these that we should be able to make significant progress or achieve this year. supervisor campos: thank you for that. i just think that going forward, when the report comes out, it would be helpful to have the timelines in place. one of the questions i also have, as you were listing what the report calls essential partners, is there a response from these partners as to the -- when they will be addressing the issues that are raised in these recommendations? >> all of the essential partners listed in the report have had a chance